Conspiracies in Africa, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times
Topic started on 7-1-2009 @ 11:56 AM by Skyfloating
They laugh about conspiracy theorists because we believe in a "hidden hand" orchestrating events in the background, a "third power" manipulating two sides to fight each other and benefiting from those wars.

Well...guess what...in Africa, this type of conspiracy can actually be historically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

What happened in Rwanda is only one of many examples of the same conspiracy being played over and over again on an unsuspecting populace:

The nation Rwanda had been living in peace and relative prosperity since hundreds of years. The Hutu and Tutsi lived side by side. Admittedly they had a sort of caste system with the Tutsi ruling and the Hutu farming, but it somehow worked....and the Hutu had the chance to "climb the ranks" to become Tutsi if they acquired cattle.

Then came the Belgians, claiming that Rwanda "belonged" to them. It had so been "decided" in Europe. The Tutsi, of course, would have none of that. They said: "No thanks, we will keep our independence".

Angered by the Tutsi wanting their sovereignty Belgium then secretly teamed up with the Hutu and said to them: Do you want a revolution? Belgium equipped them with anti-tutsi propaganda and heavily armed them.

Ever since then, the Hutu and Tutsi are enganged in mass-slaughtering each other, in genocide and constant bloodshed of millions.

Whats so disgusting is that the msm and our "education" portrays the endless Rwandan wars as the result of "tribalism" rather than showing where the

a) original motivation for war came from (in this case Germany and Belgium)

and where the

b) weapons came from (Belgium)

This was not the first or last time the dumb control-freaks of our white race have set up one tribe against another. I hope to post more examples and hope to hear examples from other posters.


[edit on 7-1-2009 by Skyfloating]


reply posted on 7-1-2009 @ 12:28 PM by Skyfloating
continued from opening posts

It was a European Conference in Berlin where they, in nowadays almost incomprehensible arrogance, divided the land amongst each other.

"France gets this area. England gets these areas. Germany gets that. Belgium and Holland get that".

If ever a problem came up from the blacks or if ever rebellion against the occupation occured, the whites simply did what they always do: Equip the tribes with weapons and tell one tribe that something is "the other tribes fault". Then they would sit back and watch as they slaughtered each other.

In addition to that, hoards of "missionaries" stripped the various tribes of their roots and tried to impose their own belief-system upon the people...sometimes with the promise of great riches.

Even today in Nigeria, people convert to Christianity only because it is connected with getting food, drink and clothes.

Islamic representatives even go so far as paying people to convert to their religion. Someone desperately in need of a drink of water will easily convert to anything.

Various countries have used Africa as their battleground. So that they wouldnt have to wage war against each other openly, they did so by representing various factions in Africa. In this way Belgium can have a war against France and Russia can have a war against the U.S. without their own home countries ever getting hurt.

This is referred to some as "using Africa as our game board".

[edit on 7-1-2009 by Skyfloating]


reply posted on 7-1-2009 @ 12:53 PM by Skyfloating
continued from opening post

An especially wicked aspect of the Conspiracy is the concept of "financial aid" and how it is handled.

First of all, the elites of the IMF and World Bank know very well that giving people something for nothing, actually weakens them, makes them dependent and weak. So rather than providing education, they pump money into their hands.

This is the old "giving them fish, instead of teaching them how to fish".

All the while the mass media laments that "we are giving them money, what else do they want?"

Secondly, the aid is given to people who have spent their life in total desperation for only a bowl of rice and some water. Many people who are now in the government of Africa, are not the intellectuals, not the ones who studied, not the ones who were abroad, not the well-off ones, but former soldiers and military men.

What were they before they were military? Poor. Thats how people are recruited into the military in Africa: They are so poor that they will eagerly join any movement or any army just to get some bread.

Later on, they then govern. So what happens if you give these type of people "financial aid"? In accordance with their mindset, they will cling to it. None of it will be used for the country. It will be used to buy hundreds of Rolls Royce.

Meanwhile the educated and enlightened Africans who'd be able to govern properly have long fled the continent to Europe or America.

In many areas, where aid and food is dropped by "UN planes", the stuff does not actually go to the women and children it was intended for, but is confiscated by whatever corrupt dictator happens to be in power at the moment.


reply posted on 7-1-2009 @ 01:48 PM by Chaoticar
Originally posted by Skyfloating
The nation Rwanda had been living in peace and relative prosperity since hundreds of years. The Hutu and Tutsi lived side by side.


Contrast with:

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Admittedly they had a sort of caste system with the Tutsi ruling and the Hutu farming, but it somehow worked....and the Hutu had the chance to "climb the ranks" to become Tutsi if they acquired cattle.


It "somehow worked"...just like Feudalism "somehow worked":
Though the Hutu/Tutsi dichotomy was based more on tribal, as opposed to social, status both are things I'd shy away from claiming as "good".

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Then came the Belgians, claiming that Rwanda "belonged" to them. It had so been "decided" in Europe. The Tutsi, of course, would have none of that. They said: "No thanks, we will keep our independence".


Actually, most of that never happened:
Yes, it was decided that (what is now Rwanda - but then called "the Belgian Congo) would be under Belgian domination, however the Belgians reinforced the tribe/caste system - declaring the Tutsi "Hamites" and Hutus mere "negroes" - by offfering the Tutsi better employment opportunities, while ending intermarriage and therefore most social mobility between Hutu and Tutsi:
In fact, some reason that the fact that - with the end of Belgian dominance in the Rwandan region - the Tutsi, largely due to the colonial government benevolent towards them - had a disproportionately-large dominance over Rwanda, which may have led to the Genocide.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Angered by the Tutsi wanting their sovereignty Belgium then secretly teamed up with the Hutu and said to them: Do you want a revolution? Belgium equipped them with anti-tutsi propaganda and heavily armed them.


Erm, no:
Belgium had'abandoned' Rwanda decades before the Genocide, and had almost entirely abandoned all national interests in said nation. Where are the dividends Belgium recieved - or would have recieved - for this Genocide?

Blaming Belgium as 'causing' the Genocide for merely occupying the country at one point in time would be as fallacious as blaming a Dalit genocide in India tomorrow as being 'caused by the British':

The Rwandan Genocide had its roots in class/tribe inequalities, and good ol' African tribalism

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Whats so disgusting is that the msm and our "education" portrays the endless Rwandan wars as the result of "tribalism" rather than showing where the


Well, to be honest I find your - and the Left's - views that all Africa's tribal problems can be put at the feet of Racist Whitey pretty disgusting.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
a) original motivation for war came from (in this case Germany and Belgium)


Again, why would Belgium have such interest in a decades-free colony? And where did Germany come into this?!?!

Originally posted by Skyfloating
b) weapons came from (Belgium)


You mean the pangas (machetes)?
The Rwandan Genocide was very primitive, technology-wise - if I was a Hutu, I'd be complaining to the Belgium embassy if that was the "support" we recieved!

Originally posted by Skyfloating
This was not the first or last time the dumb control-freaks of our white race have set up one tribe against another. I hope to post more examples and hope to hear examples from other posters.


And we find the root of the diatribe:
You admitted earlier that the Tutsis had always been on top, but place the blame for the Genocide - not on Hutus tired of occupying the "bottom rung" of society, despite forming the majority - but on a European nation(s) that had left Rwanda decades before, and had/have no viable interests in Rwanda.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Back in the day, before full-fledged colonization swept in, Europeans would stop at the costs of entire Africa. They wouldnt venture further into Africa because of the harsh conditions of the unknown territory.


Correct, to an extent.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
What they found was the richest continent in the world. And what they did was pillage it. Rob it. Suck everything out of it they could.
Africa is in fact so rich in resources, that they havent stopped pillaging to this very day.


Well, "richest" is relative:
Central/South America were also the "richest" at a prior point in time - but I don't see where the 'pillaging' comes from, they were merely extracting resources.
And the "Europeans" have stopped - it's the multinational corporations and their African accomplices doing the looting now.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The rightful inhabitants of the country were natural people, not idiots, but simply not interested in exploiting those resources.


I'd lean towards unable or ignorant to extract the resources/know the value of the resources.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by Chaoticar]


reply posted on 7-1-2009 @ 01:57 PM by Chaoticar
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Nevertheless the whites, in their insatiable greed, deemed it necessary to enslave those people, deport them or plot one tribe against the other.


Rich/greedy whites found it profitable to enslave Africans:
Most Europeans were as materially-unaffected by the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade as Americans are wealthier because of the Occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The main means of plotting one tribe against another was to artificially create countries and borders that were completely at odds with the natural borders they had been living with since thousands of years.


Well actually, Africa's "borders" came from political expediency in the "Scramble for Africa":
However, pre-Scramble Africa's (well, sub-Saharan anyway) "borders" were delineated by whichever nation/tribe was dominant at the moment:
I don't believe there was any feasible way - due to the spread of tribes throughout several modern countries - to "carve out" tribal states, without harming a tribe/s. And if they did create countries based on tribes, Africa would be in a lot more chaos than it is now, as larger/stronger tribe-nations would simply invade and annex neighbouring smaller/weaker tribe-nations.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Suddenly two tribes that normally went out of each others way, were forced to govern together...


We still talking about Hutu/Tutsi?
I'm just wondering, because you previously stated that the Tutsis "dominated" the Hutus...


reply posted on 7-1-2009 @ 02:03 PM by Gemwolf
I agree with your points about 99% of the way. I can go on and on about blood diamonds, gold, weapons "trade", etc. Perhaps Rwanda was the best example you could have chosen, as it's not always the story.

Such as in the Southern regions tribal wars have gone on for ages - long before "the white man" came to Africa. If you dig into the history of the Swazi, Sotho, Tswana and other tribes you'll find that war was not an uncommon occurrence - if not a way of life. Most notably the Khoi San(Bushmen) was one of the tribes that felt the blood-thirst of other tribes the most. (And to add insult to injury the Namaqua and Khoikhoi sub-tribes were nearly completely wiped out by the Germans.)

The best examples of tribal wars can be found in the Zulu history. Especially the roles of Shaka and Dingiswayo in the tribes are extremely interesting (especially if you liked literature like "the art of war").

And the tribes were well aware of the riches of Africa. Great Zimbabwe (not to be confused with the current Zimbabwe) is famous for its ancient gold.

In fact, in the sixth century AD, Cosmas Indicopleustes of Alexandria13 referred to gold acquired by trade with southeast Africa (where "winter occurred during northern hemisphere summer"); so did Masudi and Ibn Al Wardy in the tenth century - when it was apparently being exported from an Arab trading post at Sofala (on the coast, east of the Zimbabwe Ruins: the modern resort there still carries the old name). That gold could easily have been first detected in alluvial mud at the mouth of the Zambezi river, and perhaps also in the Sabi.


So, I agree that Africa has never been the same (and will never again be the same) since the interference from "the white folks" - but "back in the days" Africa wasn't really the peaceful, paradise one would've hoped.


reply posted on 7-1-2009 @ 02:14 PM by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gemwolf


Thanks for shedding light on that. I understand you're more expert on Africa than me - you live there afterall.

And yeah...it was never entirely peaceful. Nevertheless, I think all the intervention has done a lot of harm.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by Skyfloating]


reply posted on 7-1-2009 @ 03:33 PM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Skyfloating


First thanks for opening such a thread.....You are indeed right to point out there is a "conspiracy". Having extensively visited Rwanda, I can tell you the following:
1/ Hutus and tutsies are the same people, only different social casts. Unfortunately what you point out about europeans screwing up is absolutely true.
The Belgians introduced the "ethnic" ID card as far back as 1932. The crieria used to distinguish the people was who owned more or less than 10 cows. 10 cows and above and here you go...You are a tutsi.
Still today many people of the 50's and 60's generations still go by these european criterias.
2/ The genocide was the climax of this european "cultural collateral damage"
3/ The war in Congo today is the pursuit of an even greater plan.
As you know mobile phones need a mineral called Coltan to function. How is it that mobile phones spread all over the world as of 1998, right when the "Congo war" really started....funny coincidence nah?
4/ Mining companies....Africom....
www.infowars.com... in my opinion one very good article

Thanks again
Peace!
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Did Carl Sagan know something?
  Posted 17 days ago with 276 member flags
Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 13 days ago with 122 member flags
STOP....Take a STEP BACK....and look at the BIG PICTURE!!
  Posted 19 days ago with 115 member flags
Was this the real reason why Megaupload was closed down?
  Posted 17 days ago with 96 member flags
The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 15 days ago with 85 member flags